Kerala Court September 2011 Judgments

M/S. S and S Enterprises Vs. V. Vasanthan and Others

Court: Kerala

J. Chelameswar, C. J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment dated 25th March, 2008 in W P (C) No. 30668 of 2007. The appellants in WA No. 1287 of 2008 are respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant in WA No. 1290 of 2008 is the 5th respondent in the said writ petition respectively. 2. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein with the prayers as follows: "(i) A writ of mandamus or any other writ direction or order directing 2nd and 3rd respondents not to remove the road Medians, handrails and Bus shelter constructed by the petitioner on the National Highway pursuant to Exts. P1, P2 and P4 agreements and the advertisement display on the same. (ii) A declaration that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have no manner of right over National Highways and State Highways passing through the Municipal Corporation and as such no permission contemplated under S.272 of the Municipality Act, 1994 is required to erect or display advertisements along the National Highway. (iii) A declarati...

Pius, Chiriyandandath House, Kuriachira, Rep. by the Power of Attorney ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in OP.1192/04 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The OP has been disposed of by the Forum mentioning that the same reasons mentioned in the order in OP.670/03 will apply to the facts of the present case. This Commission has held in disposing of appeal 193/11 filed over the order in OP.670/03 that the order in OP.670/03 has to be treated as non-est as the complainant therein was not alive when the order in OP.670/03 was pronounced. In the circumstances the order in OP.1192/04 is also set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Forum for fresh disposal. The case stands posted before the Forum on 29.10.2011. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum....

Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Rep. by Its Director Vs. N ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.36/08 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The matter is with respect to the surgery undergone by the complainant for malignancy in the stomach. The treatment expenses were covered by Cancer for Life Scheme of the opposite party/appellant. According to the complainant he underwent surgery at PVSHospital, Ernakulam as the doctor at the opposite party hospital advised instant surgical interference to remove the malignant growth, but it was not possible to undergo the surgery at the opposite party hospital as there were numerous patients already queued up in line to be operated upon. According to the complainant the particular surgeon of the opposite party institution himself advised the complainant to go to somewhere else to get operated upon instantaneously. As per the records it would show that after the above s...

Elayoor Sree Vishnu Kshethra and Another Vs. Malabar Devaswom Board an ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2012(3)KLJ135

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J. 1. Petitioners in these writ petitions challenge decisions of the authorities under the Malabar Devaswom Board to appoint non-hereditary trustees for two temples which are among those administered in terms of a Scheme dated 2.8.1956, framed in O.A.59/56, by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Endowments (Administration) Department, Coimbatore, under Section 58(6) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. By that Scheme, which came into force from the date of that order, the administration of the affairs of the twelve (12) temples under the Thrikkaikat  Math was ordered as vesting hereditarily in the Moopil Swamiyar of Thrikkaikat Math. 2. Different contentions on which these writ petitions are filed include the allegation that the action taken is in violation of  the provisions of the Act and also bad as having been made after the code of conduct came into force as part of...

Popular Motor Corporation, Rep by General Manager, Simon M. Xavier Vs. ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLT67; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)74; 2011(4)KLJ51; 2011(3)KHC847

“CR” ABDUL REHIM, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a dealer of Two Wheeler and Three Wheeler vehicles manufactured by M/s. Balaji Automobiles. There are 5 permanent workers engaged by the petitioner in their stocking yard, assigned with the work of driving down two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles from big Trailer Trucks, in which such vehicles are brought. According to the petitioner, a ramp is provided, which will be attached to the Trailer Trucks, and the two wheelers and three wheelers will be driven down from the Trucks through the ‘sliders’ provided on the ramp. It is stated that all the 5 employees of the petitioners are hobbling valid driving licences and they have got requisite experience and expertise to drive/ride the vehicles from the Trucks to the ground. It is further stated that no manual or physical unloading work is involved in getting down the vehicles from the Trailer Trucks. It is also contended that the 5 permanent workers of the petitioner ...

K.B. Anil Kumar Vs. N.S. Sheela and Others

Court: Kerala

BALAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is whether the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim made by the first respondent-wife against her husband’s brother for return of money and whether the O.P. filed by her before the Family Court is a suit or proceeding ‘in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship’ as mentioned in explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act (for short ‘the Act’). The first respondent-wife filed O.P. before the Family Court against her husband and his brothers. As against the appellant herein, the claim made by her was for recovery of Rs.1,20,700/-. Her case is that while the marital relationship between her and her husband (1st respondent in the O.P.) was subsisting, as directed and influenced by her husband, she stood as a surety for the appellant in a chitty transaction and since the appellant defaul...

Rajan Vs. Padmavathy Gopalan Nair and Another

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2011(4)KLJ193; 2011(4)KHC383

1. Defendant in O.S.528 of 2005 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad is the appellant. Plaintiffs are the respondents. The suit was filed by the respondents through their power of attorney holder for realization of the advance of Rs.40,000/- paid under Ext.A1 agreement for sale. The appellant resisted the suit contending that though first respondent authorized the power of attorney holder to institute the suit, as admitted in the plaint, second respondent has only orally authorized the person to institute the suit and without a written authority, the suit could not be instituted and therefore the suit is not maintained. Appellant also contended that though he executed Ext.A1 agreement for sale and received Rs.40,000/- as advance, he is not liable to repay the advance amount as he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and sale deed was not executed due to the failure of the respondents to perform their part of the contact. 2. Learned Munsiff on t...

V.K. Narayanan and Another Vs. the K.S.E.B, Vaithyuthi Bhavan and Othe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainants in C.C. 314/2009 of C.D.R.F. Kottayam who are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below vide order dated 25.2.2011. The case of the complainants is that the second petitioner is conducting a tyre re- trading shop in the name and style SKV Tyres. The first petitioner is his son. It is alleged that the 3rd opposite party asked for a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and when the same was not paid a bill for Rs. 1,20,697/- was given on 15.10.2009 stating that in the inspection conducted on 13.10.09 there were some discrepancies in the premises of the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the officials of the opposite party forcibly obtained certain signed blank papers also from the first petitioner and inorder to avoid disconnection , they have paid Rs. 50,000/- Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill for Rs....

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. and Another Vs. Sajir Kar ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in C.C. 32/10 before the C.D.R.F. Wayanad who is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below has directed them to close the accounts of the complainant on receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a Goods Autorikshaw under finance from the first opposite party for a amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- on the agreement that the same with interest shall be repaid within 47 months @ Rs. 3,760/- per month. The complainant has stated that though he has paid 14 monthly installments, the Autorikshaw was seized by the opposite parties for realization of the amount due from him. It is also his case that the opposite parties were threatening him for realization of huge amounts as he had given some blank papers and signed cheques to the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complaint was...

The Director, Mercy Hospital and Another Vs. Lilly Joseph

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants are the opposite parties and respondent is the complainant in OP.No.464/99 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The respondent/complainant alleged that the opposite parties were negligent in doing the abdominal hysterectomy operation on 7.11.97 and due to the said negligence the complainant suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss. It was further alleged that due to the said negligence in doing the hysterectomy by the second opposite party Dr.Shanthi the complainant had leaking of urine continuously and Vesico Vaginal Fistula was developed, that the said V V F was repaired at KasturbaMedical College Hospital, Manipal. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs from the opposite parties. 2. The Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint written version denying the medical negligence and...